Case law (or precedent) is a law made by the courts and decided by the judges. The case law operates on the principle of stare decisis, which literally means “to stick to decisions”. This principle means that a court must obey and apply the law as set out in decisions rendered by higher courts in previous cases. A year later, Frank and Adel have a similar problem. If they sue their landlord, the court must use the previous court`s decision when enforcing the law. This example of case-law refers to two cases heard by the national court at the same level. The judgment of the first court created jurisprudence that other courts must follow until a new law is created or a higher court decides otherwise. Jurisprudence, also known as precedent or common law, is the set of previous judicial decisions that guide judges in deciding the issues before them. Depending on the relationship between the deciding court and the previous one, case law may be binding or simply convincing. For example, a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District is binding on all federal district courts in the Fifth District, but a California court (whether a federal court or a state court) is not strictly bound to follow the previous decision of the Fifth District. Similarly, a decision of one New York district court is not binding on another district court, but the reasoning of the original court could help the second court make its decision.

You may have heard of case law, but what does that term really mean? Just a few years ago, finding precedents was a difficult and time-consuming task, forcing people to sift through printed copies of case law or pay to access online commercial databases. Today, the Internet has opened up a multitude of possibilities for case law research, and many sources offer free access to case law. Conducting a case law search can be as simple as typing certain keywords or quotes into a search engine. However, there are some websites that make it easier to get justice, including: Problem: In this pre-Civil War case, the question was whether Congress had the constitutional authority to prohibit slavery in free territories. A second question was whether the Constitution gave African Americans the right to sue in federal court. As a result, the 1857 court said no for both reasons: Congress could not ban slavery in the territories, and African Americans did not have the right to sue in federal court. In interpreting the Constitution as it existed prior to the Civil War Amendments (Constitutional Amendments 13, 14 and 15) to abolish slavery, the Court concluded that people of African descent had no rights as citizens. The court further argued that slaves were “property” and therefore could not be taken from their owners without due process. Relevance: The Dred Scott case became a central issue in the debate over the expansion of slavery and fueled the flames that led to the Civil War. These judicial interpretations differ from written law, which is a code promulgated by the legislature, and regulatory law, which is determined by executive bodies on the basis of laws. In some jurisdictions, case law may be applied to pending decisions; For example, criminal proceedings or family law. Case law, like legislation, can change over time.

Just because a decision was once a good law does not mean it still is today. The lawyer must not only be able to find and read the case law, but also to ascertain whether it has been subject to subsequent judicial review and whether it remains in good law. Question: Does the Constitution require that anyone accused of a crime but unable to pay a lawyer be guaranteed free assistance from a lawyer? Result: Yes, according to a unanimous Supreme Court. The court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to state criminal proceedings and that “attorneys in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.” Relevance: Along with the right to assistance for state offenders, the Gideon decision had the effect of expanding public defense systems across the country. Stacy, a tenant of a cottage owned by Martin, filed a civil lawsuit against her landlord, saying he didn`t give her enough notice before raising her rent, citing a new state law that requires a notice period of at least 90 days. Martin argues that the new law only applies to owners of large, multi-tenant properties. When the state court reviewing the law, it notes that while it mentions large multi-tenant properties in a specific context, it is actually quite vague as to whether the 90-day provision applies to all landlords. The judge will decide based on the specific circumstances of Stacy`s case that all owners are bound by the 90-day notice period and rule in Stacy`s favor.